Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
While this discussion has been interesting, I still have yet to see how it applies to the basics of Title IX, and how it affects women's and men's sports in schools. Very few, if any, sports departments would exist on an income and profit-producing basis only. I would like to see how many schools' math departments would be self-supporting. But there is something both departments have in common - both have to provide the same opportunities to both women and men. How silly would it sound to say women math majors would only have the TA's teach them, while the guys would be taught by the professors, because there are more guys in the program, and thus pull in more tuition dollars to the department?
Same in sports - if it is offered to the guys, the (relatively) same opportunities will be offered to the girls. If both together cannot be afforded, neither should be offered. It is still up to the school to determine if is worth subsidizing both; it has nothing to do with which sport brings in the most dollars. That's where the OP's article comes in - is providing 2 officials to girl's basketball games the "same opportunity" as providing 3 officials to the boy's games?
Of course, this only applies to the educational setting, not the business and entertainment field. I don't think anyone has said this applies to making people watch the WNBA, or that professional women soccer players need to make the same salaries as their male conterparts.
|
Thanks for a very succinct and understandable explanation.
And whether girls' ball is better or not, it's much harder to ref, especially at the hs level, and thus should be MORE likely to get the 3-whistle crew, not less likely. just IMO.